Use of Force in International Law (JUFN27)

Use of Force in International Law (JUFN27)

Autumn semester, 2017

Seminar No. 6

• Malanczuk’s article about Israel and its status from the perspective of international law; the article is taken from The Encyclopedia of Public International Law – an excellent resource, which I use quite often. (Seminar Materials, p. 151 ff.) Crawford’s essay covering much the same topic; (Seminar Materials, p. 167 ff.) The former text provides good historical background, and the latter offers a short – and perhaps a bit meagre – account of the various arguments in the debate regarding Israel’s status according to international law.
• Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22; British Mandate for Palestine; UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II). See separate documents, on the web-page of the course.
• UN General Assembly Resolutions 66/253 and 67/262, available at:
• UN Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2118, available at:

Groups 2 and 3: Israel’s status according to international law(Groups decide themselves how to distribute tasks and present results)

(1) From 1919 to 1948, Palestine was a so-called mandate territory, administrated by Great Britain under the supervision of the League of Nations. Briefly describe the main features of the League of Nations’ mandate system! In addition, describe in more detail how Great Britain’s mandate over Palestine was established, and the conditions associated with the Mandate!

Today, it is undeniable that Israel must be considered a state from the perspective of international law. However, it is a rather complex matter to explain how the state of Israel came into being. Many conflicting suggestions have been made. Naturally,the debate is heavily influenced by political considerations, but this is all the more reason to examine arguments as impartially and objectively as we can.

(2) One suggestion is that the British Mandate for Palestine was invalid and remained a nullity from the very beginning (=ab initio), because it was not consistent with the provisions of Article 22 of the UN Statute. Develop this argument in more detail! What objections could be raised?

(3) Another suggestion is that the British Mandate for Palestine was invalidand remained a nullity from the very beginning (=ab initio), because it was not consistent with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Develop this argument in more detail! What objections could be raised?

(4) It has been suggested that from 18February 1947, when the UK unilaterally withdrew from its mandate, Palestine was terra nullius – a territory open to occupation by any and every current or future state. Develop this argument in more detail! What objections could possibly be raised to this proposition?

(5) It has been argued that through its adoption of Resolution 181(II), the UN General Assembly created a legal title that Israel could invoke. What objections could be possibly be raised to this proposition?

(6) It has been claimed that Israel could not come into existence with the declaration of independence on 14 May 1948, because the establishment of the state of Israel violated the right of self-determination held by the Arab people of Palestine. What objections could be raised to this proposition?

(7) Crawford’s suggestion is that Israel came into existence as a state when it concluded the armistice agreement with Egypt on 24 February 1949. Can you elaborate and explain Crawford’s reasoning in more detail?

Group 4: The war in Syria

(1) The UN General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions as a result of the ongoing war in Syria, including resolution 66/253and 67/262. Consider operative paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 of resolution 66/253, and operative paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 11, 18, 19 and 21 of Resolution 67/262. Briefly describe the most important points of each and every one of these decisions. Which provision or provisions of the UN Charter empower the General Assembly to make the decisions? Are any of the parties to the conflict, or any other state, bound under international law to act upon any of the decisions, and if so, which ones?

(2)The UN Security Council has also adopted resolutions as a result of the ongoing war in Syria, including resolutions2042 (2012) and 2118 (2013). Consider operative paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 9 of resolution 2042 (2012) and operative paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 2118 (2013).Briefly describe the most important points of each and every one of these decisions. Which provision or provisions of the UN Charter empower the Security Council to make the decisions? Are any of the parties to the conflict, or any other state bound under international law to act upon any of the decision, and of so, which ones?

Group 1: The war in Syria (cont’d.)

(1) In this conflict, both sides have received support from other states. Sources claim that the most powerful of the opposition forces (the so-called “Syrian coalition”) receives logistical and political support from Sunni-dominated states such as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The largest Kurdish opposition group (PYD) is said to receive military training with the help of the local government in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Syrian government buys weapons and other military equipment from Russia. Military personnel from Iran are reportedly participating more or less actively in fighting, on the side of the Syrian government. Can any such supportive action be denounced based on international law? Is the right of self-determination a relevant factor in this context?

(2) Some states – primarily the USA – have expressed the need for some kind of military response to the Syrian government’s presumed use of chemical weapons. It is not at all clear what legal grounds could be used to justify such a response. The language used by President Obama and other representatives of the American government indicates that such a response would have several different objectives. First, there is a desire to prevent future use of chemical weapons in the on-going Syrian armed conflict. Second, there is a desire to prevent the acquisition of the chemical weapons, to which the Syrian government clearly has access, by groups who might use these weapons to carry out terrorist attacks directed at American targets. Third, there is a desire to act either to retaliate or to induce Syria to comply with obligations entailed by its international responsibility, which includes (among other things) the obligation to cease using chemical weapons. Using these parameters, discuss the legality of a possible US military intervention.